Who is going to buy the 11-24 f/4L?

[mackguyver]

Since Canon has the balls to charge $3k for this lens, it is clear that we will see a great lens. Unless they are back to the over pricing strategy they were on prior to the new 16-35 and the 100-400 lenses.

I really question what I will be using it for though. The 16-35 f4L IS is a stellar performer and, unless you carry two bodies, it is a lot more versatile than 11-24. I have never felt the need for something wider than 15mm (I didn´t believe I needed that either ...), so I wonder if this will become the great lens occupying its place in my bag, without being used. Alternatively, will it be good enough to justify selling the 16-35 and the Zeiss 15mm?

But I guess, the only way to find out is to follow of my weak character and get one :

I don't see it as a replacement for the 16-35 as I feel the zoom range of that lens is more practical and with the IS, it's a killer walkaround lens. Also, I understand the feeling about not needing wider than 16mm 15mm, but I have missed the extra millimeters since I sold my Sigma 12-24 II. 12mm gives you almost 1/3 more in the frame than 14mm according to my tests, so 11mm vs. 15 or 16mm is even more extreme. The real value is in the extreme perspective, and the creative possibilities of that. It's going to be really tough to use at 11mm, but I'm ready for the challenge

 

[Eldar]

Since Canon has the balls to charge $3k for this lens, it is clear that we will see a great lens. Unless they are back to the over pricing strategy they were on prior to the new 16-35 and the 100-400 lenses.

I really question what I will be using it for though. The 16-35 f4L IS is a stellar performer and, unless you carry two bodies, it is a lot more versatile than 11-24. I have never felt the need for something wider than 15mm (I didn´t believe I needed that either ...), so I wonder if this will become the great lens occupying its place in my bag, without being used. Alternatively, will it be good enough to justify selling the 16-35 and the Zeiss 15mm?

But I guess, the only way to find out is to follow of my weak character and get one :

I don't see it as a replacement for the 16-35 as I feel the zoom range of that lens is more practical and with the IS, it's a killer walkaround lens. Also, I understand the feeling about not needing wider than 16mm 15mm, but I have missed the extra millimeters since I sold my Sigma 12-24 II. 12mm gives you almost 1/3 more in the frame than 14mm according to my tests, so 11mm vs. 15 or 16mm is even more extreme. The real value is in the extreme perspective, and the creative possibilities of that. It's going to be really tough to use at 11mm, but I'm ready for the challenge

Puuhh ... I will need yet another bag and a sherpa ... :

 

[mackguyver]

Since Canon has the balls to charge $3k for this lens, it is clear that we will see a great lens. Unless they are back to the over pricing strategy they were on prior to the new 16-35 and the 100-400 lenses.

I really question what I will be using it for though. The 16-35 f4L IS is a stellar performer and, unless you carry two bodies, it is a lot more versatile than 11-24. I have never felt the need for something wider than 15mm (I didn´t believe I needed that either ...), so I wonder if this will become the great lens occupying its place in my bag, without being used. Alternatively, will it be good enough to justify selling the 16-35 and the Zeiss 15mm?

But I guess, the only way to find out is to follow of my weak character and get one :

I don't see it as a replacement for the 16-35 as I feel the zoom range of that lens is more practical and with the IS, it's a killer walkaround lens. Also, I understand the feeling about not needing wider than 16mm 15mm, but I have missed the extra millimeters since I sold my Sigma 12-24 II. 12mm gives you almost 1/3 more in the frame than 14mm according to my tests, so 11mm vs. 15 or 16mm is even more extreme. The real value is in the extreme perspective, and the creative possibilities of that. It's going to be really tough to use at 11mm, but I'm ready for the challenge

Puuhh ... I will need yet another bag and a sherpa ... :

Too funny! I've been trying to use a one in, one out model - i.e. sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II for the f/4 IS, but this doesn't really replace anything. It seems that my camera gear has become a bit like my tools. I have some special wrenches, sockets, and special tools I rarely use, but I keep them for when I need them. My toolboxes have grown and multiplied, but no sherpas are required as they don't travel far... The only problem I'm having is that my camera insurance bill has now grown to the cost of a decent L lens each year

All the same, I'll have my finger on the mouse tonight, ready to click Order!

 

[dcm]

Don't expect to preorder. I'll wait till the full specs and reviews are in before I pull the trigger.

My other options were f/4 (current 17-40 f/4 or planned upgrade 16-35 f/4 IS) so that doesn't bother me at all. The increased FL range is intriguing for mountain tops and deep canyons/valleys. I already shoot the 8-15 fisheye and sometimes defish. I might use the fisheye less with this lens.

 

[mackguyver]

Don't expect to preorder. I'll wait till the full specs and reviews are in before I pull the trigger.

My other options were f/4 (current 17-40 f/4 or planned upgrade 16-35 f/4 IS) so that doesn't bother me at all. The increased FL range is intriguing for mountain tops and deep canyons/valleys. I already shoot the 8-15 fisheye and sometimes defish. I might use the fisheye less with this lens.

With the 8-15, I could see this lens as less intriguing. Personally I'm not a fan of the fisheye distortion, but love superwide, so I'm hoping this is all it should be. Canon's last several lenses are all pretty spectacular, so I'm not concerned with waiting for tests. That's just my feeling, but I certainly understand and respect how others feel.

 

[dcm]

Don't expect to preorder. I'll wait till the full specs and reviews are in before I pull the trigger.

My other options were f/4 (current 17-40 f/4 or planned upgrade 16-35 f/4 IS) so that doesn't bother me at all. The increased FL range is intriguing for mountain tops and deep canyons/valleys. I already shoot the 8-15 fisheye and sometimes defish. I might use the fisheye less with this lens.

With the 8-15, I could see this lens as less intriguing. Personally I'm not a fan of the fisheye distortion, but love superwide, so I'm hoping this is all it should be. Canon's last several lenses are all pretty spectacular, so I'm not concerned with waiting for tests. That's just my feeling, but I certainly understand and respect how others feel.

I'm busy and would likely not have much time to use it in the near future so no need to rush on my part. Besides, your's and Eldar's are some of the comments I'd like to see. At this point it's very likely I'll buy, just looking for some confirmation.

 

[NWPhil]

It's on a Watch list for sure, so probably yes, but not right away.

- priority will be the 100-400mk2, but just got the Otus 85mm and a RRS tripod, so I have to relax and recover for a while

will rent it when becomes available, so I can compare it with my other UWA lenses...and then wait for a refurb

 

[SwnSng]

Will flip a coin between the 11-24mm and the 100-400mkii. On one hand i've been bitten by the landscape bug and was recently hired for some Real Estate work on the other Little League games will be starting at the end of Feb. Of course the other option would be just to buy both... <wallet runs in fear>

 

[mackguyver]

Besides, your's and Eldar's are some of the comments I'd like to see. At this point it's very likely I'll buy, just looking for some confirmation.

I already have some work lined up that may pay for this lens - a client looking for some unique photos of their event. I came up with a shot they loved last year, but there's always pressure to create something different.

Will flip a coin between the 11-24mm and the 100-400mkii. On one hand i've been bitten by the landscape bug and was recently hired for some Real Estate work on the other Little League games will be starting at the end of Feb. Of course the other option would be just to buy both... <wallet runs in fear>

LOL and that's a tough choice. I imagine Little League will win out before long

 

[RGF]

Got the 16-35 f4 IS last summer and was very happy with that so it's a bit annoying this comes now .

Bit unsure how shooting this ridiculously wide will turn out, but will likely get it if it the tests show it to be as good as I expect.

I, too, got the 16-35 F4 last summer and am happy with the lens. I also have had the 14 for several years and am quite happy with that. I just got a 17 TS/E and now comes 11-24.

The 17 TS/E is great for landscape and I was considering it an Ultra-Ultra wide alternative (shift left/right and merge).

Now the 11-24 will give the same angle of view as the 17 TS/E set up as pan.

Angle of view for 11mm is 95º short and 117º long axis. 17 is 70º vertical and 93º long axis. So if flip the 17 TS to portrait I get the same angle of view as the 11 in the landscape orientation.

So may sell the 14 and buy the 11-24